THE 48-HOUR PACT.

Levin Daily Chronicle, 29 February 1928, Page 7

THE 48-HOUR PACT.

OVERWHELMING DEFEAT OF MOTION (Received Tuesday, 5.5 p.m.) LONDON, Feb. 27. In the House of Commons in Com mittee on the Civil Estimates Mr T. Shaw (Labour) moved a reduction as a protest against Britain’s non-rati-fication of the Washington Eight Hours Convention, declaring that Britain’s failure to honor her bond had torpedoed the Convention. Mr H. B. Betterton, replying, said that the reason the Government had not ratified the Convention despite the fact that 35 per cent of the people in Britain worked only 48 hours per week was that existing industrial agreements affecting hundreds of thousands of British workers would be imperilled by ratification of Convention as it was at present drafted. If the Labourites really wanted to secure the position of workers throughout the world they would support Britain’s effort to amend the Convention which was at present variously interpreted in different countries. Sir A. H. D. Ramsay Steel-Mait--land, the Minister of Labour, in closing the debate, said that there was never any obligation on the part of the Government to ratify the Convention so thafAtoh} could pot be any question of breach of faith. It was clear the Labour Party wished ‘to ratify the Washington Convention as it now stood. : Mr T. Shaw interrupting indignantly, denied this. Sir Ramsay Stccl-Maitland; “Then I do not know where Mr Shaw stands. A 48-hour week would be illegal in many industries under any domestic legislation founded on the Washington Convention. If we pressed for revision I do not think there would be any fundamental difference between ourselves and France. The motion was defeated by 214 votes to 98, and the vote was agreed to.